NORTH KOREA - Verses the United States

"U.S. calls for global diplomatic effort to punish and sway North Korea" PBS NewsHour 7/5/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  North Korea's Tuesday missile launch crossed the intercontinental threshold the U.S. had been hoping to prevent.  At the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, the U.S. tried to rally the world to punish and isolate the regime.  Meanwhile, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un insisted he will never negotiate away his missile and nuclear programs.  Nick Schifrin reports on the American response so far.

"Could new economic pressure change North Korea’s ambitions?" PBS NewsHour 7/5/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  When it comes to facing the threat of North Korea, there are no easy answers and few good options.  Could new economic sanctions change the trajectory of the country’s?  Judy Woodruff gets views from John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, and David S. Cohen a former CIA and Treasury Department official.

NEWSHOUR SHARES - CoverGirl's Nura Afia

"How a Muslim-American glamour girl became the new face of CoverGirl" PBS NewsHour 7/5/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In our NewsHour Shares moment of the day, Nura Afia went from watching YouTube videos as a young mother, to becoming a fashion video blogger with an international following, to being named CoverGirl's first Muslim brand ambassador.

BEERS - What the Buzz is All About

"From the wing of a wasp, scientists discover a new beer-making yeast" PBS NewsHour 7/4/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  If you enjoy a beer on a summer day, you can thank yeast, the microbes that ferment sugar into alcohol and give beer its character.  After innumerable generations of using just two types of yeast, a lab in North Carolina has discovered a new yeast that produces a variety of flavors, and it comes from the weirdest source, bees.  Science producer Nsikan Akpan reveals what the buzz is all about.

RELATED:

"New studies shed light on insecticide’s effect on bees, economic consequences of climate change" PBS NewsHour 7/5/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Neonicotinoids, the popular insecticide used in agriculture, can be harmful to bees, according to new papers.  Science correspondent Miles O’Brien joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss some important findings and analyses on that story, as well as a recent study that looked at the economic consequences of climate change.

TRUMP AGENDA - Poisoning of the Environment Legal Setback

"Trump’s rollback of Obama-era rules hits setback in court" PBS NewsHour 7/4/2017

Also note that methane is explosive.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Environmental Protection Agency cannot delay implementation of a rule limiting methane emissions from new oil and gas drilling wells, according to an appeals court ruling on Monday.  William Brangham speaks with Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post about the obstacle for the Trump administration’s efforts to reverse environmental regulations and the wider implications.

NEWSHOUR SHARES - What?! Cricket in U.S.

"Can cricket go mainstream in the U.S.?" PBS NewsHour 7/4/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In our NewsHour Shares moment of the day, the second most popular sport in the world [cricket] is starting to catch on in the United States -- with a little help from some devotees who grew up playing it in other countries.

STUDENT REPORTING - California's Channel Islands National Park

"How this remote national park made a mammoth discovery" PBS NewsHour 7/4/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  California's Channel Islands National Park is the site of a recent mammoth discovery: a pygmy mammoth skull, to be precise.  This report was produced as part of our Student Reporting Labs by students from Etiwanda High School in Southern California.

AGENTS FOR CHANGE - Clubfoot

"This simple correction for clubfoot is a life changer for kids in India" PBS NewsHour 7/3/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Clubfoot, a treatable birth defect that can bring pain and social isolation, is often not treated in the developing world.  But a treatment developed a half century ago by a doctor in Iowa is less invasive, less expensive and less painful than the corrective surgery that was once required.  Special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro reports on how a charity is trying to bring the cure to children in India.

NEWSHOUR BOOKSHELF - "House of Names"

"Colm Toibin sees the ‘origin of all civil wars’ in this Greek tragedy" PBS NewsHour 7/3/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the new novel "House of Names," one of today's leading contemporary writers looks back to the Trojan War and Greek mythology for inspiration.  Colm Toibin joins Jeffrey Brown to discuss why he wanted to write a novel about a family drama in ancient Greece and the connection to civil wars in our own time.

POLITICS MONDAY - Civility and Trust

"How Americans see civility and trust in today’s politics" PBS NewsHour 7/3/2017

IMHO:  Republicans, ALL they want is a win for their draconian agenda.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Most Americans believe civility is getting worse since President Trump was elected, according to a new poll.  Judy Woodruff talks to Tamara Keith of NPR and Stuart Rothenberg of Inside Elections about the results of the latest PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll, the President’s continued attacks against the media and the continuing battle over health care on Capitol Hill.

RELATED:  "New poll: 70% of Americans think civility has gotten worse since Trump took office" by Laura Santhanam, PBS NewsHour 7/3/2017

DOCUMENTARY - Buena Vista Social Club: Adios

I have two of there albums (CDs), love their music.



Their world hit first album: "Buena Vista Social Club" (full album)

THE RESISTANCE - Lady Rachel Maddow, House Stark

House Stark - Game of Thrones

AMERICAN POLITICS - Opinion, Trump Supporters

"There's No Denying How Trump Supporters Will Be Remembered in our History Books" by Allen Clifton, Forward Progressives 5/14/2017

Before the election, I wrote an article that touched on some of the same points I'm going to talk about here.  However, I felt as if it needed a bit of a “refresh,” of sorts, based on the absolute chaos we've seen since Donald Trump was sworn into office on January 20, 2017.

The words I used at the beginning of that article ring as true now as they did when I first wrote them:

There's not even a shred of sane or rational logic anyone can use to defend Donald Trump.

Say what you want about him, and there's plenty to say, but Trump knew what he was talking about when, over a year ago, he said his supporters were mindless sheep who'll support him no matter what.

Sure, his approval numbers have hit historic lows, and most of the country thinks he's doing a piss-poor job as “Commander-in-Chief,” but the overwhelming majority of Republicans still fully support him.

As I've said before, I don't think most of his supporters care if he did collude with Russia during the election.  He could admit he worked with Putin to undermine the integrity of our democracy and the vast majority of Republicans would still probably support him.

His supporters can't even defend his campaign promises anymore considering we now know they were total bullshit.  Mexico's not paying for his border wall, he's not going to prosecute Hillary Clinton, and the health care plan he supports isn't anything that he said it would be prior to getting “elected.”

And just like I wrote several months ago, at this point, if you're still a supporter of Donald Trump, here's what you really are: You're someone who's cemented your place in history as an individual who we're all going to look back upon with disgust and shame because you were ignorant enough to support the most corrupt, dishonest, vile, and incompetent “President” in United States history.

This is a man who's:

• Mocked a man with disabilities.
• Attacked the parents of a fallen American hero.
• Belittled POWs and the war record of Sen.  John McCain.
• Lied about how much money he raised for veterans.
• Called a former Miss Universe “disgusting” and fat, telling his Twitter followers to find her non-existent sex tape.
• Accused an American-born federal judge of being unfit to do his job because of his Mexican heritage.
• Likely avoided paying taxes for nearly two decades.
• Called most Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, even though that's not remotely factual.
• Lied about seeing “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11.
• Lied about getting a letter from the NFL complaining about the debate schedule.
• Tried to exploit the death of an African American woman in Chicago to say that's why black voters will support him.
• Found the “bright side” to tragedies because his poll numbers tend to go up.
• Settled with the Department of Justice after his company was found guilty of racially discriminating against minorities.
• Has cheated on at least one wife.
• Was discovered on video admitting that he not only tried to cheat on his current wife, but he attempted to do so with another married woman.
• Had his first wife publicly say that he did nothing when it came to raising their children until they were old enough to talk business.
• Tweeted that women should have expected to be sexually assaulted when they mixed males and females together in the military.
• Said he wants to target the families of terrorists.
• Stated that he wants to ban an entire religion.
• Praised a Russian President who obviously hates the U.S. and Americans.
• Encouraged the Russian government to commit espionage against Americans.
• Insinuated that another Republican's wife was ugly.
• Tried to implicate another Republican's father in JFK's assassination.
• Sought out the help of former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes after he was fired following multiple allegations that he had sexually harassed women for years.
• Made Breitbart's Steve Bannon one of his top campaign people.
• Had a former campaign manager abruptly resign after a report came out linking him to pro-Russian groups that were directly trying to undermine U.S. policy in eastern Europe.
• Called Carly Fiorina ugly.
• Has said climate change was a hoax created by the Chinese — then denied saying it.
• Was a leading conspiracy theorist when it came to the racist-driven birther conspiracies against President Obama.
• Dismissed nearly eight years of accusing the President of not being an American with a less than 30 second statement where he didn't apologize for any of it.
• Tried to blame Hillary Clinton for his racism.
• Re-tweeted anti-African American propaganda created by a white supremacy group.
• Played dumb about knowing who former Grand Wizard of the KKK David Duke was.
• Skipped a Presidential debate because he was scared of a moderator.
• Has, on several occasions, suggested he finds his daughter attractive.
• Called a husband doing things like changing diapers and helping with the children, a man “trying to be the wife.”
• Has said he wants more countries to have nuclear weapons.
• Said he can't release his tax returns because they're currently being audited — even though the IRS said that's a lie.
• Feels he has the right to sexually assault women.
• Lied, in the face of indisputable photographic evidence, about the size of his inauguration crowd.
• Continues to push the unfounded conspiracy that “millions of people voted illegally” because his ego can't handle the fact Clinton received 3 million more votes than he did.
• Disgraced the CIA's monument to fallen agents by talking about his electoral college victory.
• After frequently criticizing President Obama for playing golf, has spent nearly half his weekends since being sworn into office playing golf at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
• On pace to cost taxpayers more on “extracurricular” expenses during his first 365 days in office than we spent on Obama during his 2,921 days as President.
• Settled a $25 million lawsuit accusing him of purposely creating a fake university to scam people out of money.
• Has already broken most of his biggest campaign promises.
• Fired the head of the FBI for apparently not “swearing loyalty” and doing what he wanted in regards to the on-going investigations looking into his campaign's ties to Russians.
• Then threatened the former head of the FBI just after firing him in an attempt to intimidate him from speaking out publicly.
• Pushed an unfounded conspiracy against Barack Obama, accusing him of ordering unconstitutional wiretaps placed in Trump Tower — without providing a shred of evidence to back it up.
• Seems to have been working with the head of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep.  Devin Nunes, to undermine congressional investigations into his possible Russian connections.
• Had said, despite promising to do so, he doesn't plan to ever release his tax returns.
• Said he didn't know being “President” would be so hard.
• Apparently needed the President of China to explain to him why dealing with North Korea is complicated.
• Signed two travel bans against Muslims that were overturned as unconstitutional.
• Allowed state-run Russian media to bring electronic and photographic equipment into the Oval Office — while denying entry to any U.S. press — at the request of Vladimir Putin.
• Said his surrogates shouldn't be held accountable for the dishonest or contradictory things they say.
• Admitted Australia, which has universal health care, has better health care than we do, then doubled-down on those comments, yet still supports a bill that's almost the complete opposite of their system.
• Months after the election, continues to bring it up the electoral college, even hanging a large printout of it on a wall in the White House.
• Didn't mention the Jewish people once during his speech on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
• Blamed Democrats for the initial failure of the House of Representatives being able to pass Trumpcare — even though Republicans have a 44-seat majority.
• Is now bragging about the very same jobs reports he called “fake” and “phony” prior to taking office.
• Continues to call the talk about the investigations into his connections to Russia “FAKE NEWS!” even though the FBI has publicly admitted these investigations are, in fact, real.
• Has the lowest approval rating for a President this early into their presidency — in history.
• Admitted he lied when he publicly threatened that he might have recorded his conversations with the former head of the FBI he had just fired — in a clear attempt to intimidate James Comey into not speaking out about what the two men had discussed.
• Apparently doesn't understand what “collusion” or “obstruction” actually mean.
• Called the very same health care plan he publicly celebrated and said he supports “mean.”
• Launched a disgusting attack against “low I.Q” MSNBC's Mika Brzeninski, accusing her of “bleeding badly from a face-lift” when he saw her back in January, while calling her co-host Joe Scarborough, and former U.S. congressman, “psycho.”

One man has done all of that, and much more.

I'm no mental health expert and I'm not involved in the medical field at all.  But based on what I've read and can plainly see about Donald Trump, he exhibits nearly every characteristic linked to a sociopath.  He:

• Doesn't believe the rules or laws apply to him.
• Seems to have no concern about the consequences of his actions.
• Is impulsive.
• Shows frequent signs of being reckless.
• Is unpredictable.
• Lacks morals.
• Is a narcissist.
• Has proven to be hot-tempered and a bit of a loose cannon.
• Lacks empathy or sympathy for others.
• Is manipulative to get what he wants.
• Almost never apologizes.
• Often invents outrageous lies about his success or experiences.
• Seems to believe that what he says is the truth, even if it isn't.

He is essentially the textbook definition of a sociopath.  However, despite the fact that he exhibits all of these signs without shame, millions of people support him.

Again, I'm not a mental health professional, but I don't think you need to be one to see that there's clearly something not right with Trump.  This type of unhinged behavior is not normal.

So, at this point, after all that Donald Trump has said and done and factoring in the campaign promises he's already broken, if you still support him, you've done nothing more than carved out your spot as someone we will all look back upon with disgust and humiliation that there were so many people like you who eagerly supported one of the most shameful embarrassments in United States history.

REPUBLICAN AGENDA - Trump's Voter 'Suppression' Commission

The perpetration of a lie.

"Election Experts See Flaws in Trump Voter Commission's Plan to Smoke Out Fraud" by Jessica Huseman, ProPublica 7/6/2017

The commission told ProPublica that states' voter rolls will be run against federal databases to find potential fraudulent registrations — a move experts say will result in thousands of errors and could distort fraud.

Vice President Mike Pence's office has confirmed the White House commission on voter fraud intends to run the state voter rolls it has requested against federal databases to check for potential fraudulent registration.  Experts say the plan is certain to produce thousands of false positives that could distort the understanding of the potential for fraud, especially given the limited data states have agreed to turn over.

“This just demonstrates remarkable naivety on how this voter data can be used,” said David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research.  “There's absolutely no way that incomplete data from some states — mainly consisting of names and addresses — can be used to determine anything.”

The commission's vice chair, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, sent a letter to states last week requesting detailed information on voters.  The request asked for information such as Social Security numbers and military status most states cannot legally make available.  But most states will be handing over information that is public, such as names, years of birth and whether they've voted in previous elections.

Marc Lotter, spokesman for Pence, told ProPublica the state voter information will be run “through a number of different databases, looking for the possibility for areas where voter rolls could be strengthened.”

While Lotter would not say specifically which databases the rolls would be run against, The Washington Times reported last week the commission may seek to check the names against the federal government's database of non-citizens.  A 2012 attempt by Florida to do that resulted in many legitimate voters being falsely flagged because they had the same names as people in the federal database.  Gov. Rick Scott scrapped the effort and eventually apologized.

Comparing names nationwide could result in far more false positives.

“How many Manuel Rodríguezes born in 1945 who are citizens are going to be on an immigration list?  There are likely to be several,” said Charles Stewart, a professor at MIT and expert in election administration.  “How will you know if he's the immigrant, or he is one of the several people with that name who are citizens and legally registered?”

Kobach runs a matching program that appears to have its own high rate of errors.  A recent study by political scientists at Stanford University found that Kobach's Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program had 200 false positives for every actual double registration.  The Kansas secretary of state's office did not immediately return a call for comment on the program.

Other systems already exist that do rigorous matching.  The Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, is a voluntary, paid system operated by a nonprofit and used by 20 states and the District of Columbia.  The system uses far more information than states are able to make publicly available, such as driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers and even email addresses.

Becker, who helped create ERIC, said it took years of work to ensure careful matches.  The speed at which Kobach and Pence sought information from states, which were given two weeks to hand over their voter rolls, and their plan for the limited amount of information they'll receive “demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the process,” said Becker.

Lotter, Pence's spokesman, said that even if false matches were made they'd do no harm since the commission can't remove names from states' voter rolls.  He said the commission is simply going to provide recommendations and highlight any common problems that might come up in the matching process.

“What we are trying to do is create the first national look at voter registration and the potential for fraudulent registration that could lead to fraudulent voting,” Lotter said.  “At the end of the day you have to ask yourself who is not for making sure we have one person one vote?”

John Merrill, the Republican secretary of state for Alabama, said any false positive raises the likelihood a voter might be incorrectly purged.

“I would be surprised if they could find a way to improve upon the methods already in place from the consortiums that already exists,” Merrill said.  “Every time you remove a mechanism that more positively identifies a voter, it increases the opportunity for a false positive to match.”

President Trump created the commission after making unsupported claims that there were millions of illegal votes cast in the 2016 presidential election.  Kobach, the commission's public face, has long asserted without evidence that voter fraud is widespread.

Despite numerous academic studies to the contrary, Kobach has claimed that non-citizens regularly vote, that people vote twice with frequency and has backed Trump's claims of illegal voting last year.  Kobach, along with other members of the commission, has also supported restrictions on voter registration, including strict voter ID laws.

Lotter said the bipartisan nature of the commission — currently four of the 10 announced commissioners are Democrats — should assuage any concerns from critics.  The four Democrats include Maine's secretary of state, Matthew Dunlap, whose state has declined to provide the information the commission requested in Kobach's letter.

Lotter also said none of the commissioners had “pre-conceived notions” about voter fraud and that they would fairly judge the results of the matches.

Dale Ho, the director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, disputed Lotter's claims of neutrality.

“It's up is down and black is white,” he said.  “The idea that people who have made repeated public statements that they believe, contrary to all evidence, that there is massive fraud are not biased is ludicrous.”

HINDSIGHT - Wisconsin Republican Looks Back

"A Wisconsin Republican Looks Back With Regret at Voter ID and Redistricting Fights" by Topher Sanders, ProPublica 7/3/2017

Republican efforts to impose voter ID laws and redraw election districts both wound up in federal court.  Dale Schultz ended 30 years in state politics lamenting the recent displays of partisanship.

Dale Schultz, a Republican, served in the Wisconsin Legislature for more than 30 years, from 1983 to 2015.  His Senate district is located in south Wisconsin, much of it rural farmland.  Schultz was considered a moderate, and so much of what happened in state politics near the end of his tenure dismayed him; partisan fights over the rights of unions, a gubernatorial recall election, and claims of partisan Republican gerrymandering that will now be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And then there was the prolonged entanglement over voting rights in the state — who could vote, when they could vote, how they could vote.  In the face of years of political combat and federal court fights, the legislature ultimately adopted a vast array of changes to election laws.  Among them:

• Voters would have to produce certain types of identification.

• Early voting was reduced.

• Restrictions on absentee balloting were implemented.

Time frames for how long people had to be residing in the state before they could vote were lengthened.

Republicans hailed the moves as overdue steps toward improving the integrity of state voting.  Democrats cried foul, alleging a conspiracy to suppress votes among people of color and others inclined to vote Democratic.

Schulz was in office for the birth of the efforts to tighten voting procedures and often present for the Republican deliberations about their aims.  Schultz, before leaving office, voted for the initial voting measures, a decision he came to regret.  He opposed some of the subsequent measures as litigation over the issues made their way through the courts and his career wound down.

ProPublica had a rare interview with Schultz recently about the issue of voting in Wisconsin.  The Q&A follows.  It has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

ProPublica: You were initially in favor of Republican efforts to tighten voting and reconfigure districts.  What first appealed to you about those ideas?

Dale Schultz: Well, the blunt truth is, as a partisan politician, your knee-jerk reaction is to protect the standing of your party because that solidifies your power to accomplish what you want to do.  My good friend and former colleague, Tim Cullen, also served as Senate majority leader but on the Democrat side, and we've said we're both guilty of voting for redistricting maps which were politically motivated.  This isn't a one party sin.  It happens on both sides, and that's why we introduced our bipartisan bill to change how we redistrict in Wisconsin.  I'm happy the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up the issue this fall.

ProPublica: The Republicans pushing the voter ID effort cited voter fraud as a concern and a reason to tighten voting rules and requirements.  Did anyone ever show you compelling evidence of that?

Dale Schultz: No, in fact, quite the opposite.  Some of the most conservative people in our caucus actually took the time to involve themselves in election-watching and came back and told other caucus members that, “I'm sorry, I didn't see it.”

In terms of voting laws, look, I don't have a fundamental problem with having to show a photo ID in order to vote, but what I do have a problem with are the severe restrictions on what kind of photo ID is allowed and also using these laws to suppress the votes of specific groups.

You need to understand, I come from the old school of the “Institution of the Senate.”  When I was coming up through the ranks, and even when I was majority leader, I put great stock and respect into the chairmanship system.  When you were given a chair of a committee, you were expected to put the good of the Senate above all else.  So when the chair of the Senate elections committee says there's a problem with voter fraud in the state, and the committee passes a bill out, you take them at their word.

But that's on me.

Anyway, I ultimately ordered my staff to launch our own investigation and come up with three concrete examples of voter fraud in Wisconsin.  Well, guess what?  They couldn't do it, and you need to understand the time, I had graduates from the University of Wisconsin journalism school on staff who'd worked for national publications.  But we did come up with two examples.  One was a Republican legislative staffer who'd voted in the Madison area as well as back in her hometown in the same election.  The other was the estranged wife of a Republican.  That's it, and both examples were on the Republican side.

ProPublica: Did you ever raise the lack of evidence with your Republican colleagues?

Dale Schultz: Our caucuses were quite raucous.  Our meetings and how we dealt with one another was blunt.

I asked my colleagues to show me three specific examples, and all I got was a bunch of hand-wringing and drama-filled speeches about the “buses of Democrats being brought up from Chicago.”  I said, “Show me where that was ever prosecuted or even charges brought.”  It was crickets.  Nobody could give me an answer, and that was both an eye-opening and sad moment for me because I think it finally hit me that time-honored tradition of the “Institution of the Senate” was all but dead.

You know, I had, I think it's fair to say, a reputation for challenging the thinking of our caucuses.  But if you find yourself in a situation where you're dissenting too often, pretty soon people go, “Well, he never agrees with us, he's not really one of us.  We're not going to bother to listen.”  So, you learn to pick your spots and try to make a difference where you can.

I want to be clear.  I don't want to cast myself as some sort of superhero.  Look, I'm a politician.  I was for 30 years.  Inherently, that means that you compromise and that everybody's hands get a little dirty as they try to work out a solution that is the best for people.

People were very frank and this is not a game for the timid.  People were very emotional, but you know when it comes to casting votes, people know that once the decision is made, the team pretty much sticks together.

ProPublica: Talk about why you later came to regret ever voting for the measures.

Dale Schultz: I voted for the first voter law bill, and then I did what I'd done since I first got elected in 1982; I went out and did my regular scheduled district office hours.  It took all of my first stop to realize I didn't do my homework.  I had town and village clerks coming up to me saying, “Dale, are you nuts?  Do you realize how restricting voting hours and early voting and absentee voting is going to affect how people can vote let alone making our jobs all the harder?”  They also made it clear that there was no voter fraud happening that they were aware of.  Because of the feedback from my constituents, I voted 'no' on the subsequent bills.

I enjoyed all the people I represented and it was a great honor.  But there were occasions where people said, “Dale, I've heard your explanation on what you've done and why you've done it, but I think you got this wrong.”  And I think voter ID was one of those.

A long time ago my father told me on the farm, if you happen to, when you're out in the pasture, put your foot in a cowpie, don't sit there and explain why you stepped in it, just take it out.  And it's been my experience politically, that when you do that, and you explain the reasons, people tend to see that as a politician evolving and thinking and listening, and I think most people are hungry for that.  And they're supportive of that, as long as it doesn't become a daily flip-flop.

ProPublica: The numbers are in from the 2016 election in Wisconsin.  The state surprised the pollsters by going for Trump.  And now there's likely to be a long debate and examination of whether the voter ID and other measures played a role in that outcome.  Any early thoughts?

Dale Schultz: Oh, yeah, all of these things have an impact.  Even just constantly keeping up a steady drumbeat of claims about election fraud has an impact.  It motivates a base.  How big an impact probably varies from state to state.  In very close elections, even seemingly small impacts can have great consequences.

ProPublica: You got out of elective office after 32 years.  Why?

Dale Schultz: Well, because I like to think I'm old enough and wise enough to know that there's more to life than politics, as important as it's been to me and as enjoyable as it has been to me for all those years.  Then again, it's not that I haven't been bothered by the changes I'd seen around me or just the simple reality that it was less fun than it used to be as people stopped thinking and became more Pavlovian.

ANTARCTICA - Melting Faster

"Antarctica is melting faster than scientists expected" PBS NewsHour 7/2/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Scientists predict a sheet of ice 110 miles long -- the size of Delaware -- will break off Antarctica in the coming days or weeks.  In its July issue, National Geographic covers the effects that warming oceans will have on global sea level rise.  Robert Kunzig, the magazine's senior environment editor, joins Hari Sreenivasan from Birmingham, Ala.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 6/30/2017

"Shields and Brooks on GOP's health care bill gridlock, Trump tweet backlash" PBS NewsHour 6/30/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's news, including the difficulty Republican leaders are having getting enough support for the Senate health care bill, including tense relations between the White House and Congress, plus the political reaction to President Trump's tweets about two cable news hosts.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Well, speaking of the tweets, David, we have seen some eyebrow-raisers.  We have heard some gasps.  But I guess the president's tweet yesterday morning about the “Morning Joe” MSNBC cable hosts, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, where the president tweeted very personal insults, low I.Q., face-lift, and so forth, it seemed to reach a new low.

Do we learn anything new about this President at this point?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Well, one of the nice things, if we can find a silver lining here, is, it's possible for everybody to be freshly appalled, that we are not inured to savage, misogynistic behavior of this sort.

And I saw a lot of people around.  And I certainly felt in myself a freshness, a freshness of outrage.

And I must say, when I hear Roy Blunt say it's unhelpful to himself, well, that's true, but it's more than unhelpful to Donald Trump to tweet in this way.  It's morally objectionable.  And I do wish more Senators would say that.  Lindsey Graham and Ben Sasse have said it, but a lot of others, oh, it's just not helpful.

It's more than that.  And the issue here is the corruption of our public sphere.  And that's what Donald Trump does with these things.  And it makes it harder for us, our country, to ever get back to normal, when these things are corrosive to just the way people talk to each other.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Corruption of the public sphere, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  I think David is guilty of understatement.

No, I think he put it very well.  This is hateful and it's hurtful.  Judy, I don't know what a parent or a grandparent is supposed to say to a 10-year-old or a 12-year-old who said anything comparable to this and was sent — banished to their room or whatever else for it, I mean, that the President of the United States can talk this way, and there are no consequences.

The irony is that he's more engaged on the back-and-forth with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on this than he has been on health care or any other issue.  He obviously — this is what matters to him.  And it's just that classic — not to be sectionally biased, but it's sort of a New York bully approach to life, I mean, that you say anything, you do anything, because the important thing is winning.

And I just — you know, I don't know what else there is to say, other than you want to put yourself through a car wash after you listen to the President talk this way.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Are there consequences, David?  I mean, I heard what you said about some senators are just saying, well, it's not helpful, but other senators are going further and saying, this is really wrong.

But are there ever consequences?  Do we just go on like this?

DAVID BROOKS:  Yes.  Well, we will see if people eventually get disappointed and get tired.

I do think if it — one of the things that may begin to offend people is potential mafioso behavior.  One of the things we heard this morning in the op-ed piece in The Washington Post by the two hosts was that the White House sort of threatened sort of extortion, that, if the show becomes more Trump-friendly, then a National Enquirer investigation into their relationship will be spiked.

And that's sort of mafioso, extortion behavior.  That's beyond normal White House behavior.  It's beyond political hardball.  It's sort of using your media allies, The National Enquirer and the Trump administration, to take down enemies.  And that's not something we have seen in America since maybe Nixon, or maybe never.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  It's true, Mark, we haven't seen anything like this in a while.

MARK SHIELDS:  We haven't.

But I think David's point about extortion certainly strengthens the position of James Comey, that threats and extortion or a hint of extortion is part of the modus operandi.

To Republicans …

JUDY WOODRUFF:  I mean, we should say the White House is denying it.

MARK SHIELDS:  The White House is denying it.  Jared Kushner, I guess, is denying it, or perhaps somebody else through him is denying it.

But the fact that there's negotiations going back and forth or communications on this subject, you do this and we won't print an injurious and harmful article in The National Enquirer, one of the great publications of our time.

But, Judy, I remember when Republicans used to get upset and angry at Bill Clinton because he didn't wear a suit and tie in the Oval Office.  And Donald Trump, who is supposed to be this great deal-maker, I mean, Joe and Mika Brzezinski have a morning show which is a show that watched very much in this area, but it doesn't have a great national audience, and probably 1 percent of the people.

And he [Trump] just made them a national — everybody now knows about this show.  It's probably increased their ratings, juiced them up.  So I don't understand where — if anything, it's but counterproductive in every sense.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Well, it is true, David, that this is — it's hard to find you said there may be a silver lining in fresh outrage, but beyond that, I'm not sure where it is.

DAVID BROOKS:  No.

And, you know, the big question for me is, do we snapback?  Do the norms that used to govern politics reestablish themselves after the Trump administration, or are we here forever?

And I hope, from the level of outrage, that we have a snap back.  But the politics is broken up and down.  And Trump may emerge from a reality TV world that is much more powerful than we think.  And there is the prospect that this is where we are, which is an horrific thought.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Horrific thought.

MARK SHIELDS:  Yes, it is that.

NEWSHOUR'S IMHO - Scary Health Statistics

"My daughter escaped being a scary health statistic.  Here's what I learned." PBS NewsHour 6/30/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  When Elizabeth Silver's daughter was 6 weeks old, she suffered a serious stroke and spent weeks in the NICU.  Confronted with damning statistics, Silver began to see the numbers as one version of a story, with room for interpretation.  The author and attorney offers her humble opinion on how to consider a difficult prognosis.

POLICING IN AMERICA - Camden Rethinking

"What happened when Camden started rethinking policing to build trust" PBS NewsHour 6/30/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Historically one of the country's most impoverished and violent cities, Camden, New Jersey, has been working to rebuild its police force from the ground up, recruiting officers from its mostly Latino and African-American community.  The new procedures aim to bring police into closer face-to-face interactions with the people they serve in order to foster good relationships.  Hari Sreenivasan reports.

TRUMP AGENDA - Hiding Behind the Lie of Voter Fraud

This is NOT about voter fraud.  It IS about getting data to continue the Republican agenda of vote suppression.

"What does this Trump commission want to do with states' voter information?" PBS NewsHour 6/30/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has authorized a special commission to investigate his unsubstantiated claim that up to 5 million votes were cast illegally in the 2016 election.  Vice Chairman Kris Kobach penned a letter to states to send voter data, including addresses and social security information, directly to the White House.  Hari Sreenivasan speaks with Rick Hasen of the University of California, Irvine.

MAKING SEN$E - Inequality Gap

"How globalization affects inequality and populism in one chart" PBS NewsHour 6/29/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The hottest curve in economics right now helps explain the rise of China, the rise of populism in Europe, and the rise of Donald Trump.  From a global perspective, income inequality has gone down.  But if you're middle class in the U.S. or Europe, you see the rich getting richer and inequality growing.  Economics correspondent Paul Solman examines the widening gap.

COLORADO - Suburbs Clash With Oil & Gas

"In Colorado, surging suburbs and the oil and gas industry collide over safety concerns" PBS NewsHour 6/29/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Following a fatal explosion in a Denver suburb in April, Colorado is taking a closer look at all oil and gas operations across the state.  Colorado's governor has set a Friday deadline for companies to complete inspections of oil and gas lines near homes and businesses.  Dan Boyce with public media's Inside Energy reports on the tension between drilling and growing suburban development.

BRITAIN - Highrise Fire Fallout

"Will Britain's Grenfell fire tragedy spur change for social services?" PBS NewsHour 6/28/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The deadly Grenfell Tower fire is raising questions about the ways the United Kingdom cares for its poorest citizens.  Prime Minister Theresa May has promised a national investigation into the tragedy and the flammable material believed to have accelerated the fire, but the disaster has already seriously undermined confidence in May's government.  Special correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports.

CYBER ATTACK- Ukrainian Havoc

"How a sophisticated malware attack is wreaking havoc on Ukraine" PBS NewsHour 6/28/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Governments and industries the world over are trying to deal with a new cyberattack, originating Tuesday in Ukraine and spreading rapidly through Europe and beyond.  The new attack shows signs of greater technical sophistication than one in early May, but both apparently used a leaked tool developed by the NSA.  Hari Sreenivasan speaks with Rodney Joffe of Neustar, Inc., about what's at stake.

SYRIA - Chemical Weapon Warning

"White House warns Syria not to prepare another chemical weapon attack" PBS NewsHour 6/27/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Trump administration delivered a new stark warning about the use of chemical weapons to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, saying the U.S. had detected "potential preparations” to use the banned weapons again; an April chemical attack that killed dozens of people prompted the U.S. to fire missiles at an air base.  Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner reports.

Assad War Criminal

GLOBALIZATION - Walking the Silk Road

"Walking the Silk Road, where globalization got started" PBS NewsHour 6/27/2017

Time period: Around 120 BCE – 1450s CE, Main Routes

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Silk Road, the ancient trading route that spanned from Asia toward the West, is where we find journalist Paul Salopek these days.  Salopek began his "Out of Eden" walk four years ago in Ethiopia.  Now Hari Sreenivasan catches up with him for an update.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  You have been following the Silk Road that millions of people before you have.

PAUL SALOPEK, Fellow, National Geographic:  The Silk Road was an artery of trade not just of luxury item, not just of commodities, but of ideas, right?

Buddhism moved along the Silk Road routes.  Inventions like paper, which conveyed ideas, people, culture, art, music, all of these things moved along these camel caravan roads.

And it’s interesting to be walking them today, Hari, as we’re entering a phase where there’s been a bit of backlash against globalism.  And the Silk Road was the first real experiment in globalization about 2,000 years ago.

-----

HARI SREENIVASAN:  Let’s talk a little bit about the people that you have been walking with.

I imagine that you get to know these people that you’re walking hundreds of miles with.

PAUL SALOPEK:  So, I have walked about 6,000 kilometers out of Ethiopia since January of 2013.  I have crossed about 13 borders.  I have passed through about a dozen countries and territories, many languages within those territories and countries.

And along most of the way, about 95 percent of the way, I have been walking with local people.  That’s part of the project.  This is a project about humanity.  It’s a project about what connects us and what separates us, so I need to have local people.

And it’s truly amazing.  In conversations about, is the world becoming more dangerous, is it becoming more turbulent, I have to remind my readers that, at least in my experience, the world is an incredibly hospitable place.

And all of these folks who walk with me, mostly men, but some women, have become like family to me.  I literally put my life into their hands.  And I’m being passed like a human baton from walking partner to walking partner.

And what does that do?  It gives me great heart.  It gives me great energy.  It proves in a very concrete way, my safety, that most people are good and most people will help you out, even if they’re strangers, even if they’re from another culture, even if they don’t look like you or speak in the same words that you speak.

NCAA - Baylor Sex Assault Scandal

"Why the NCAA is investigating Baylor's sexual assault scandal" PBS NewsHour 6/27/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  More than a dozen women have filed lawsuits against Baylor University saying the institution ignored or mishandled claims dating back several years.  The school's Board of Regents has acknowledged that 19 football players were accused of criminal, sexual or physical assault.  John Yang speaks with Paula Lavigne of ESPN about the ongoing NCAA investigation.

TRUMP AGENDA - The Travel Ban

aka "Trump as ISIS Salesman Extraordinaire"

"Trump's travel ban, reinstated but restricted, will raise questions about who can enter U.S." PBS NewsHour 6/26/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump's revised travel ban will be tested this fall at the Supreme Court.  On the final day of their term, the justices reinstated a limited version of the order, affecting travelers from six majority-Muslim countries.  Judy Woodruff discusses the implications of the court's decision with Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal and Alan Gomez of USA Today.

"Who's in and who's left out as Trump travel ban takes effect" PBS NewsHour 6/29/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump's executive order banning entry into the U.S. from six majority-Muslim countries finally takes effect Thursday after months of legal and political wrangling.  The Supreme Court issued a partial green light earlier this week by only allowing those with “bona fide” family or business ties to be allowed in.  Judy Woodruff learns more from Yeganeh Torbati of Reuters.

REPUBLICAN AGENDA - Trumpcare 2.0 Update

"CBO score estimating 22 million uninsured adds to difficult math for Senate health care bill" PBS NewsHour 6/26/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Senate GOP's health care bill would lead to 22 million more uninsured Americans by 2026, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis released Monday.  That's slightly better than the CBO score for the House version of the bill.  But there's a rising tide of opposition that may make it difficult to get it passed.  Lisa Desjardins and Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News join John Yang.

"Conservatives are targeting the wrong things to bring down health care costs, says hospital system CEO" PBS NewsHour 6/26/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Every major hospital group has criticized the health care bill crafted by Senate Republicans, especially for deep reductions in Medicaid spending for the poor and those with disabilities.  At the Spotlight Health Conference at the Aspen Institute, Judy Woodruff talked to Kenneth Davis, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System, to get his take on the health care bill and more.

"Sen. Blunt: Hard to get 50 senators to pass health bill" PBS NewsHour 6/30/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With the July 4th recess hours away, Republican lawmakers are scrambling to draft a new version of their bill before leaving Washington.  Judy Woodruff speaks with Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo) about the chances of reaching a compromise on the Senate bill, as well as his reaction to President Trump's tweet attacks.

OPINION - Warren Buffett on America

"Part 1 — America should stand for more than just wealth, says Warren Buffett" PBS NewsHour 6/26/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Dubbed the "Oracle of Omaha," Warren Buffett is an investment rock star.  What's his take on the state of the economy?  He recently sat down with Judy Woodruff for a wide-ranging, two-part interview on inequality, the Paris Climate Agreement, health care reform, and much more.

"Part 2 — Billionaire Warren Buffett says GOP health reform bills are relief for the rich" PBS NewsHour 6/27/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What does billionaire Warren Buffett think of Republican health care bills that would roll back taxes for wealthy Americans like him?  Buffett discusses everything from how he's giving away billions in philanthropy to how much sleep he gets to what's on his personal income taxes in the second part of Judy Woodruff's exclusive interview.

FACTCHECK - Trumpcare 2.0 Premiums

"Senate Bill: Do Premiums Go Up or Down?" by Lori Robertson, FactCheck.org 6/30/2017

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer tweeted that premiums would be 300 percent higher under the Senate Republican health care bill for a 64-year-old earning $56,800 in 2026, compared with current law.  Republican Sen. John Barrasso said the bill “lowers the rates for insurance 30 percent a couple years from now.” Both cited the Congressional Budget Office.  Who's right?  They both are.

On premiums, there's something for both parties in the nonpartisan CBO's analysis of the GOP's Better Care Reconciliation Act.

That bill — just like the Affordable Care Act, and the House Republicans' bill — would affect premiums on the individual market in different ways, depending on individual circumstances.  Let's go through the details.

It's all about the individual market.  We've said this time and time again: These claims about premiums concern a relatively small segment of the insurance market where those without employer plans or coverage through a program like Medicaid buy their own insurance.  About 7 percent of Americans buy individual, or nongroup, market plans, while 49 percent get coverage through employers.  But politicians often leave out that important detail, perhaps giving the impression that all premiums would be significantly affected.

It's compared with current law — the Affordable Care Act.  The price of insurance isn't something that typically goes down.  The figures that Schumer, Barrasso (who made his comment at a press conference on June 27) and the CBO use are compared with current law.  So, a 30 percent decrease in a few years may still be an increase from what premiums are right now.

What does happen in the next few years?  “The legislation would increase average premiums in the nongroup market prior to 2020 and lower average premiums thereafter, relative to projections under current law,” the report by the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation says.  The report considers premiums for benchmark plans — currently the second-lowest cost silver plan — which are used to calculate the amount of tax credits.

In 2018, average benchmark premiums for single individuals “would be about 20 percent higher” than under current law, the CBO said, “mainly because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated, inducing fewer comparatively healthy people to sign up.” The following year, average premiums would be about 10 percent higher than under current law, but by 2020, the average premiums “would be about 30 percent lower than under current law.”

Why the drop?  The Senate bill would use a less expensive benchmark plan starting in 2020.  That year, benchmark plans would pay a smaller percentage of benefits than under current law.  Plus, CBO said, funding in the bill to directly reduce premiums would do exactly that.

The current benchmark plans have an actuarial value of 70 percent, which means they pay, on average, 70 percent of the cost of benefits that are covered.  The Senate plan would lower the actuarial value to 58 percent.  So those benchmark plans pay out a lower percentage of covered benefit costs, on average, but that means the premiums are lower.  It also means, CBO said, that the deductibles for those benchmark plans would be higher than the deductibles for benchmark plans under current law.

In about a decade — in 2026 — average benchmark plan premiums in “most of the country” would be about 20 percent below what we'd see under current law, CBO said.  It notes that the averages for 2020 and 2026 include a wide range of impacts in different parts of the country, partly because of waivers some states would get to change required benefits or other aspects of the individual market.

Why would some 64-year-olds see a big increase?  The Senate bill, as does the House GOP bill, allows insurers to charge older Americans five times as much as younger Americans for premiums (starting in 2019).  The ratio under the ACA, or current law, is 3:1.  This means premium costs for older individuals will be higher under the legislation than under current law.

For example, CBO estimates that a premium for a bronze-level plan for a 64-year-old in 2026 — not including any tax credits — would be $12,900 for the year under current law and $16,000 under the Senate bill.  The difference is greater for a silver plan — $15,300 under the ACA and $20,500 under the Senate bill.  A 21-year-old, however, would see lower premiums under the Senate plan ($3,200 for a bronze plan versus $4,300 under current law).

Schumer's tweet was about a 64-year-old earning $56,800.  That's 375 percent of the federal poverty level in 2026, making that person eligible for tax credits under the ACA but not under the Senate bill, which cuts off subsidies after income of 350 percent of the poverty level.  When it comes to how the bill could affect net premium costs, the change in subsidies adds another layer of complexity.

What about subsidies and out-of-pocket costs?  Many buying plans on the individual market don't pay the full premiums, because they get tax credits that reduce the cost.  The Affordable Care Act provides tax credits to those earning between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level.  The Senate bill would make them available to those earning between 0 percent and 350 percent of the poverty level.  And it would adjust those credits based on age for those earning above 150 percent, so that younger individuals pay less toward their premiums.

That, coupled with the 5:1 pricing variation based on age, is bad news for a 64-year-old earning $56,800 in 2026, an income level above the tax-credit cut-off.  Schumer's tweet included a graphic that said: “According to CBO, Congress' Non-Partisan Budget Office: In 2026, if you're 64 years old with an income of $56,800, under current law, you pay a $6,800 premium for a silver plan.  Under the Senate GOP bill, you'll pay a $20,500 premium for that plan.  That's a premium increase of 300%.” That's an accurate summary of the CBO report (see Table 5).

A 40-year-old, single person earning that much or more wouldn't see much of a difference in premium costs.  And a 21-year-old earning $56,800 or more would pay about $1,000 less under the Senate bill for a yearly premium compared with current law, whether it's a bronze- or silver-level plan, according to CBO's projections.  If that 21-year-old earned only $26,500 (175 percent of the poverty level in 2026), the situation is reversed: That person would pay less under current law.

CBO doesn't provide estimates on family premiums.

And then there are out-of-pocket costs to consider.  One reason benchmark premiums are lower on average under the Senate bill is because those plans cover a lower percentage of benefit costs.  Some people — say, the young and healthy — would rather have the lower premium and a higher deductible or copay; others wouldn't.  CBO said: “Some people enrolled in nongroup insurance would experience substantial increases in what they would spend on health care even though benchmark premiums would decline, on average, in 2020 and later years.”

Also, in 2020, the Senate bill eliminates cost-sharing subsidies that lower out-of-pocket costs for those earning between 100 percent and 250 percent of the poverty level.

Determining the individual impact.  Changes to the individual market made by the ACA, and the proposed changes under the Senate Republican bill, would affect people differently, depending on a variety of circumstances — age, income and health spending, among them.  To get an idea of how the Senate bill could change premiums for you personally, use the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation's interactive map.

CBO's Table 5 also gives scenarios for three different ages and four different income levels.  In general, be wary of politicians' claims about premiums going up or down.  They may be referring to specific situations, and even averages don't tell the whole story.  As the CBO report shows, there's great variation on how premiums would change under the Senate bill, depending on the individual person.

CULTURE WARS - Fascism

"Beta Testing Fascism: How Online Culture Wars Created the Alt-Right" by John Michael Colón, In These Times 6/27/2017

Angela Nagle's “Kill All Normies” charts the ideology's emergence from the internet's darkest corners.

Leftists who write think-pieces or satires about the alt-right tend to produce more sensationalism than substance.  Too often, satisfying but unhelpful insults like “anime Nazi dorks” and “neckbeard fedoras” stand in for analysis.

Rarely do we try to understand why someone who thinks of themself as a good person would want to join what amounts to the online youth wing of a global neofascist movement.  Yet many have—especially, yes, young white men—and the reactionary wave continues to spread.

By contrast, in "Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right," the Irish journalist Angela Nagle has made efforts not just to mock and condemn but to understand what's driving the alt-right's rise—and how the Left's worse tendencies help it grow.

The new book is an expansion of Nagle's reporting on the subject for American socialist magazines.  Building on work by anthropologist Gabriella Coleman and essayist David Auerbach, Nagle traces the alt-right's origins to the anonymous message boards, chat rooms, Wikis and blogs that dominated cyberspace through the mid-2000s and early 2010s, before today's public and interlinked social media accounts had reached their current level of dominance.  Defined by total anonymity, fleeting interactions and information overload, these spaces fostered a milieu of digital pranksterism and sophisticated in-jokes centered on two core interests: celebrating geek culture and transgressing moral boundaries

This culture was a mess of contradictions.  On the one hand, it was for a time a hotbed of principled leftist cyber-activism that culminated in endeavors such as the Anonymous movement and early Wikileaks.  Though their methods were controversial, these “hacktivists” were key to exposing much Obama-era corporate and government wrongdoing.  In April 2010, for example, Wikileaks released the Collateral Murder video of U.S. helicopters shooting a Reuters journalist and several civilians in Baghdad.  The next year, hackers revealed that Bank of America—with help from the Department of Justice—had assembled a team of shadowy intelligence contractors to coordinate a campaign of disinformation and hacking against journalists and activists.

As Nagle sees it, this radical element has faded away, undermined not only by state spying and repression but also by the inherent limits of its leaderless structure and ideological vagueness.

What's arisen in its place is something more toxic: a shallow online identity politics of both the Left and Right that Nagle calls “politics as culture war.”

The right-wing side grew out of forums like 4chan, where white and upper-middle-class teenagers, protected by screen names and driven by deep social alienation, could plot to ruin the lives of random strangers through harassment and the publication of personal information (known as doxxing) while cracking intentionally hyperbolic and supposedly ironic jokes on sexist, pedophiliac, anti-Semitic and racist themes.  In these web communities, it's intentionally ambiguous whether jokes like “Jews did 9/11” are supposed to be funny because they're absurd or because they're true.  This proves a fruitful ambiguity for actual racists, as it helps them normalize and spread their beliefs.

It was the 2014 “Gamergate” controversy, Nagle explains, that turned this largely apolitical “culture of transgression” into a far-right cultural movement.  When female video-game journalists such as Anita Sarkeesian took issue with sexism in the gaming world, offended male gamers unleashed a sustained campaign of harassment, doxxing, and rape and death threats against the critics.  Like-minded young men (and some women) took note.  Soon a decentralized coalition of rabid anti-feminists, white nationalists, “free-market” libertarians and even self-proclaimed monarchists had declared war on political correctness.  The shared culture they developed, Nagle writes, was “characterized by a particularly dark preoccupation with thwarted or failed white Western masculinity as a grand metaphor.”

This primordial stew of proto-fascism is what came to be called the alt-right.  After moving through its origins, Nagle spends the bulk of her book sketching its various component movements and their figureheads.

There's the Manosphere, whose diverse collection of misogynists is united in the belief that feminism has destroyed both the traditional family and their own sexual prospects.  There's Richard Spencer and his white nationalist brigade, who argue for the biological reality of race, the impossibility of a multicultural society, and the need for white ethnostates to defend the West from immigrants and Islam.  There are carnival barkers like Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes and Lauren Southern who manufacture whole media careers by baiting over-earnest progressives into shrill and predictable denunciations.  And there's the whole sad parade of self-help gurus, conspiracy theorists and supplement-peddling hucksters—think InfoWars.com owner Alex Jones—who have found a way to make a quick buck and a name for themselves in the alt-right digital ecosystem.

It all has the feel of a whirlwind tour—which isn't always to the book's benefit.  Much of 'Kill All Normies' is a series of anecdotes that doesn't take the time to define its terms or give more than cursory summaries of its subjects.  Often these anecdotes are illuminating in themselves, but readers who aren't already familiar with the relevant subcultures and slang may struggle to keep up.  (This improves in the last three chapters and conclusion, which stand on their own as analytic essays.)

Nagle is at her best when she moves past the fleeting scandals and fads of digital culture and cuts to the psychological roots of this new far-right cultural politics—particularly its anti-feminist core.  With surprising sympathy, she outlines their “anxiety and anger about their low-ranking status” in the sexual hierarchy.  She quotes “men's rights activist” F. Roger Devlin, who argues that the freedom of women to choose sexual partners outside marriage and defy traditional gender roles has led to “promiscuity for the few” and “loneliness for the majority.”  Put bluntly, Devlin and his ilk believe women choose to hook up with elite men and leave the vast majority involuntarily celibate, or “incel.”  Whether or not this argument holds, those lonely outcasts who see themselves as the victims of this narrative express their resentment at sexual rejection not only through trolling online but also by opposing women's basic human rights and, in extreme cases, by committing sexually motivated murders as in the 2014 massacre near the University of California, Santa Barbara.  Nagle concludes, convincingly, that this is “the central issue driving this kind of reactionary sexual politics, perhaps even the central personal motivation behind the entire turn to the far Right among young men.”

But Nagle argues these ideas gained currency as part of an online culture war—and every war has more than one side.

The alt-right's mortal enemies came into their own at the microblogging service Tumblr, where other socially alienated teens constructed subcultures based around increasingly arcane racial, gender, sexual and other identities.  Nagle argues—and I agree—that this supposedly liberal movement retreated into symbolic politics and a profoundly illiberal culture of virtue signaling, grievance and social authoritarianism.

Drawing on the work of the late writer Mark Fisher, Nagle defines “Tumblr-liberalism” (her term, though I think this underestimates the tendency's reach into radical as well as liberal circles) by its intolerance of dissent: “The very idea of winning people over through ideas now seems to anguish, offend and enrage.”  Instead, those who would express something different from the party line must be harassed or even denied a platform entirely.

Nagle catalogs many damning instances of this tendency using public humiliation, censorship, harassment and firings in order to promote and enforce its dogmas, both online and off.  (In fact I'd argue the sheer breadth of her examples shows Tumblr liberalism is something that extends far beyond Tumblr and has deeper roots.)  In one case, an “antiracist” Twitter user responds to the death of a six-year-old attacked by an alligator by mocking the “white male entitlement” of his parents; in another, anonymous students bring the academic Laura Kipnis before a Title IX court simply for writing an essay arguing love affairs between professors and their students don't necessarily constitute an abuse of power.

The spread of “antifa” tactics among anarchists and liberals in the Trump era has seen no-platforming increasingly applied to the alt-right.  But Tumblr liberals, it seems, more often than not target others on the Left, denying a platform to those guilty of thought-crime against various sacred cows.  This trend continues, as evidenced by a recent scandal in which philosophers called on a feminist journal to retract an article that dared to engage seriously with the notion of Rachel Dolezal-style “transracialism.”

Nagle believes these Tumblr liberals have “made the Left a laughingstock for a whole new generation.”  Though nominally opposed, Nagle argues, the alt-right and Tumblr liberalism feed off each other and form “essentially two rival wings of contemporary identity politics.” In the new culture wars between these two groups, the alt-right is able to claim the mantle of free speech and countercultural transgression that leftists once proudly boasted to represent, so that the Tumblr liberals are positioned as a sort of morality police—prudish, inquisitorial, and widely despised.  This in turn has made being on the Right “something exciting, fun and courageous for the first time since … well, possibly ever.”

No doubt Nagle's assault on identity politics will spark many necessary and overdue debates on the Left.  Already this has been a key part of the book's controversial reception.  But what strikes me most is something else.

Though "Kill All Normies" is a fine piece of journalism and cultural criticism—the first serious popular study of its subject—I found as I read it that I kept coming up against the book's most important limitation.  Nagle has a tendency to see the alt-right as essentially a pop-cultural phenomenon or social malaise to be diagnosed, not a political movement with ideas that must be refuted.  As a result, the book leaves many urgent questions unanswered.  Does the alt-right constitute a twenty-first century fascism?  What kind of politics, ultimately, follows from their beliefs?  What connection do they have to the xenophobic nationalism currently sweeping electoral politics across the industrialized world?  Readers must look elsewhere for answers.

Furthermore, Nagle's focus on minor Twitter celebrities means she neglects the more serious intellectuals in the movement—whether it's the post-libertarian dreams of authoritarian city-states one finds in Nick Land and Mencius Moldbug, the corporatist nationalism of Michael Anton, or the biological racism and white supremacy of Steve Sailer and Richard Spencer.  These writers make complicated arguments against democracy and for racial and sexual hierarchy rooted in historical analysis, evolutionary psychology, IQ testing and political theory.  Even when ordinary alt-righters can't recognize them by name, they are often regurgitating vulgarized versions of their ideas.

These ideas are refutable and the politics underlying them is horrific.  But every time the Left refuses to even try countering them with our own, the alt-right's portrait of us as dogmatists who can only confront their terrible truths with censorship and violence gains credibility.  (And that portrait, as we've seen, is a key component of how they recruit.)  Nagle would probably respond that the alt-right's insipid Internet lunacy reveals it to be fundamentally unserious and not worth engaging intellectually.  But today's revived socialist movement, of which Nagle and I are both a part, is no less a product of social alienation and postmodern irony than the new fascism, nor does it lack its own Twitter bullshit.  In a country that elected Trump, it's worth taking seriously the appeal of both movements as attempts to escape the dead end of neoliberalism—one by expanding democracy, the other by doing away with it.

Still, Nagle's book is a good start.  What we get from it is a brief history and a portrait of the cultural logic that may breed tomorrow's authoritarianism.  Hopefully it is the first contribution of many to that part of the antifascist struggle that employs means other than fists and makeshift shields.

TRUMP - The Shame of our Nation

The only 'fake news' comes from the Trump Administration and his puppet Republican Congress.  The 'main stream' media is the people's shield against abuse of power.